---

Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill

I am very happy to continue but I am sorry that I shall have to do so in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. Presumably the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is going to take over. I was saying, to the appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 23 which stands in his name. I believe that the collection of child maintenance should be continued even though a child has passed into the age of adulthood. I am somewhat confused because the Government seem keen to reduce this. I do not know whether there is a statutory age for the end of childhood because it appears to differ depending on the circumstances. At certain moments, it appears to be 18. If you are adopted, you need the court’s approval to marry at 16 but this requirement ceases at 18. Proposals are afoot to reduce the voting age but I do not know whether that has any bearing on the age of majority. The Government are being somewhat schizophrenic. They propose that the legal age for youngsters to leave education shall be raised to 18; until just the other day you could buy cigarettes—of which I was guilty—at 16 but alcohol at 18; you can join the Army at 16 but not be sent to a theatre of operations until you are 18. So I am not to blame for being confused about the legal age for the end of childhood. I hope the Minister can clear that up for me. Whether or not he does so, and whether childhood ends at 16 or 18, or even in between, I must return specifically to the amendment. The fact that the qualifying child is now grown up and may well not be living with his or her former parent with care makes no difference to the outstanding debt which may have arisen when he or she was younger. The question that does not seem to be answered by the legislation is: who does the money belong to? To my mind, it should be clear that the money is for the good of the child. So whilst he—this is not sexist, the Interpretation Act applies—is living with the parent with care the money is to be in the control of that parent, as it would be for any minor. When he becomes an adult or moves out or both, the money should go directly to him. Not only that, but the backlog that was not paid by the absent parent when he was a child should still be paid and, again, to him. There should be no age cut off point for this. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Minister agrees with me—in principle anyway. However, the question that he must answer is whether he agrees that this issue is important enough to be included as a main objective in the Bill, which is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, seeks. Perhaps I may gently suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that it should be a secondary consideration and therefore would be more appropriate in subsection (2). Amendment No. 27 is a probing amendment to explore why there seems to be a get-out clause in the stated objectives of CMEC. Clause 2 sets out the commission’s objectives, one of which is to support applications for child support maintenance under the 1991 Act and to ensure that there is compliance with the parental obligations set out in that Act. However, as the Bill stands, CMEC must secure compliance only ““when appropriate””. I certainly understand that there may be situations when securing compliance may not be appropriate, or indeed there may be individual scenarios in which it is impossible, but, as the Bill stands, this judgment rests entirely with CMEC. Essentially, CMEC has the power to be judge and jury over whether it may or may not pursue maintenance arrears. I feel that that proviso lacks precision. Although that might not be intended in the drafting, it could be interpreted as a loophole. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable for the commission to decide for itself when it is appropriate to require a non-resident parent to meet his obligation and when this can be simply ignored? What standards of appropriateness does the Minister have in mind? Surely the priority should be the potential benefit of the maintenance arrangements, and that is what should determine whether the commission seeks to ensure compliance. However, with the commission as the final arbiter of what is appropriate, there is no guarantee that any other potentially unrelated reason is used to shirk the responsibility of ensuring compliance. Can the noble Lord explain the need for the commission to decide for itself when it does its job and when it does not have to? Arguably, the commission should be under a legal duty to secure compliance in all cases. I understand that there may well be practical difficulties with this. I offer the example of the non-resident parent having no money, which might make compliance impossible in some individual cases. I want to be able to take account of difficult exceptions because I do not want to pass an unenforceable Bill but, as it is currently phrased, the scope for avoiding compliance with the law is simply too loose and too wide. Can the Minister give examples of when he thinks it would be appropriate for the commission to ignore the requirement for non-resident parents to meet their statutory obligations? Amendment No. 36 is an attempt to tighten and strengthen the link between the work of CMEC and its objectives. I am forced to promise yet another amendment, one to put in the Bill a precise and exact proviso. With such wishy-washy phrases as ““aim to pursue”” and ““have regard to”” the Bill can make a claim towards its grand and good objective of improving child maintenance arrangements for those children living apart from one or both parents—or can it? Those phrases, perhaps conveniently, do not bind the Bill to its objectives and therefore create room for the possibility of under-achievement. I am sure the Minister would agree that there is simply no point in passing the Bill unless noble Lords and Members of another place are confident that it will realise what it promises. Her Majesty’s Government’s record on child maintenance so far has not been exemplary and it is our duty to the children who rely on financial assistance that it should become so. We on these Benches are not going to give Her Majesty’s Government any opportunity to duck out of their commitments without being held to account. I am convinced, of course, that the Minister would wish for that too, and thus I cannot imagine that he will have any objection to my speaking and adding my name to the last amendment in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood.